# C_2020077EN.01002101.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2019 — Beeren-, Wild-, Feinfrucht GmbH v Hauptzollamt Erfurt

(Case C-825/19)

(2020/C 77/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Thüringer Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Beeren-, Wild-, Feinfrucht GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Erfurt

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 211(2) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1, ‘the UCC’) (1)to be interpreted as applying only to applications whose retroactive authorisation period would be valid as from 1 May 2016? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 211(2) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1, ‘the UCC’) (1)to be interpreted as applying only to applications whose retroactive authorisation period would be valid as from 1 May 2016?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative: In the case of applications for retroactive authorisation whose authorisation period is before 1 May 2016, is Article 211 of the UCC to be applied only if the retroactive authorisation was applied for before the new law entered into force, but the customs authorities refused such applications for the first time after 1 May 2016? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative: In the case of applications for retroactive authorisation whose authorisation period is before 1 May 2016, is Article 211 of the UCC to be applied only if the retroactive authorisation was applied for before the new law entered into force, but the customs authorities refused such applications for the first time after 1 May 2016?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the negative: In the case of applications for retroactive authorisation whose authorisation period is before 1 May 2016, is Article 211 of the UCC to be applied even if the customs authorities refused such applications both before and after 1 May 2016 (with different reasoning)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative: In the case of applications for retroactive authorisation whose authorisation period is before 1 May 2016, is Article 211 of the UCC to be applied even if the customs authorities refused such applications both before and after 1 May 2016 (with different reasoning)?

| 4. | If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and Question 3 is answered in the negative: Is Article 294(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) (2) to be interpreted as meaning that






  (a) | an authorisation could be granted with retroactive effect from the date the original authorisation expired, as provided for in Article 294(3), for a maximum retroactive period of one year before the date the application was submitted and |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and Question 3 is answered in the negative: Is Article 294(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) (2) to be interpreted as meaning that

(a)

an authorisation could be granted with retroactive effect from the date the original authorisation expired, as provided for in Article 294(3), for a maximum retroactive period of one year before the date the application was submitted and

| (b) | the proof of economic need provided for in Article 294(3) must also exist and attempted deception or obvious negligence be excluded in the case of the successive authorisation under Article 294(2)? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the proof of economic need provided for in Article 294(3) must also exist and attempted deception or obvious negligence be excluded in the case of the successive authorisation under Article 294(2)?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.

---